Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 10 September 2001
Planning Law
7.
Mr Ford
asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to amend current planning law.
4.00 pm
Mr Foster:
My Department is preparing a Planning (Amendment) Bill, which I propose to introduce in the Assembly in June 2002. It follows the issuing of a public consultation paper in 1999, which sought comment on proposals to amend planning legislation. The responses received in the consultation exercise generally welcomed the proposals in the consultation paper.
The Bill will include provisions to simplify, streamline and strengthen my Department's existing enforcement powers. It is proposed that the Bill will introduce new contravention notices, breach of condition notices, new powers to seek a court injunction and higher penalties for breaches of planning control. Provisions will also be included to increase my Department's powers relating to the protection of listed buildings, together with proposals to introduce building preservation notices as a means of spot listing historic buildings. There will also be provisions to strengthen my Department's powers in relation to the protection of trees and tree preservation orders. The Bill will also include other provisions to strengthen planning control.
Mr Ford:
The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not ask him about third party appeals, although it was on my mind. However, I ask him to give me the same information that he has promised to other Members. Is he satisfied with the current operation of planning appeals procedures? In particular, I draw his attention to the fact that the Planning Appeals Commission decided recently to allow a further 200 houses on the site known as Mayfield, at Hightown, Glengormley, in addition to the 1,100 first permitted.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Time is up, Mr Ford. Minister, would you be kind enough to respond to Mr Ford's question in writing?
Mr Ford:
The clock says 29:48. May I please continue, to make up for the time lost?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Yes, if the question can be answered in five seconds.
Mr Ford:
On a point of order. I was not allowed to ask my question in full because you cut me off at least 15 seconds before the end of the time that I had to speak. How can you redress that for me now?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
The Member could get a written answer. I call Mr McNamee.
Mr Ford:
On a point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Pat McNamee's point of order was made an hour ago.
Mr McNamee:
I refer to Standing Order 19(2). During questions to the acting First Minister and acting Deputy First Minister, and while asking a supplementary question to Question 6, Mr McFarland made a statement that was factually incorrect. He referred to three members of Sinn Féin who were arrested in Colombia. That statement was incorrect and improper.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr McFarland is not in the House. I shall ask him to respond to you.
Mr S Wilson:
On a point of order. Question Time for each Minister should last for 30 minutes exactly. You cut a Member off when the clock showed 29 minutes, 28 seconds. The Member obviously did not get to complete his question. It may well have been that he would not have received an answer - given the Minister's reputation, he probably would not have had an answer anyway even if he had had another 10 minutes - but he was unable to ask his question. It is incumbent on you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to explain how you intend to redress such a genuine grievance.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I quote an old saying from my days of studying Latin:
"De minimis non curat lex".
It means, "the law does not concern itself with trivia". I am sure that that took me four seconds to say. I have no reason to believe that the Member was in any way inhibited. All that he could have got by way of a response was about - at the most - a sentence.
Mr Ford:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has correctly quoted from Standing Orders that Question Time should last for 30 minutes. By his account, I was cut off 32 seconds before the end. After you cut me off, I looked at the clock and at least 15 seconds remained. Therefore, I probably lost at least half of the time that I should have had to pose the supplementary question to the Minister. I am afraid that my Latin is not as good as yours, but that does not seem to be "de minimis" to me.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
The Minister will respond in writing to the Member.
Mr Ford:
Therefore, he will respond to a question that I have not yet asked.
Mr Foster:
The Member will receive a written answer. I thank Mr Wilson for his gratuitous remarks.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order. I am unsure, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether you or the preceding Deputy Speaker will respond to the point of order raised by the Member from Sinn Féin. However, if you do, will you take into account that one of those arrested in Colombia was a Sinn Féin election worker, another was a leading member on the platform at a Sinn Féin conference and the third man was the official Sinn Féin representative for South America?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Robinson, you know that that is not a point of order.
Irish Justice System
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with concern the failure of the Irish justice system to resolve the rape/incest case of the daughter of British citizen Sarah Bland.
I bring the motion before the House because I believe that the rights of a British woman and her daughter, who lived in Dublin, were trampled underfoot in a most appalling manner by the authorities there.
The matter should have been debated in Dáil Éireann; it should have been processed by an Irish court. It is on today's Order Paper because of the failure of successive Dublin Governments and the Dublin courts to face up to their responsibilities. The case is a political message to all those in the political establishment of the South and, as long as the gross injustice, known as the Bland case, remains unresolved, anything that the Irish authorities may say about rights, equality, justice, honour and truth should be treated with contempt. If the Bland case is a lesson in how the Dublin authorities would treat one of its own, the political significance of that should never be lost on Unionists in the House and outside.
The case concerns a young Roman Catholic woman, Sarah Bland, living in the midlands of the Republic from 1980 to 1982 and the 20-year fight by her resilient mother, Patricia Bland, to right the crimes visited on that family. The case continues to this day, but I want the Assembly to note it because of the rape, incest and abuse that occurred during the early 1980s when Sarah Bland was a child.
The case is the only example that I can find in which a child suffered rape and incest as a result of being placed, by a High Court order, into the hands of the abuser. Instead of rescuing and protecting the child from abuse by a court order, the courts in the Irish Republic lent themselves to that abuse. We must publicly ask the Irish courts and the political extablishment why a four-year-old girl was sent back to her abusing father by a court order after he had admitted in open court to being an abuser, a wife beater and an alcoholic. The child was subjected to incest, torture, drugging and rape by a number of men in a stately home, which, by Christmas 1980, was run down, filthy and chaotic. Had common sense prevailed in the Irish Republic's legal establishment, Sarah Bland would never have been placed in the care of her father.
For two years, Sarah Bland exhibited signs of extreme trauma. She endured hundreds of hypnotic comas and revealed to her mother the extent of the hedonistic torture and debauchery to which she had been subjected. However, no solicitor would act to defend the rights of this child or her mother. When the mother tried to get help, she was also made a victim. Sneering allegations and threats were made against her. In this case, a child was raped and a family was robbed of its rights and, later, of its finances.
The case has been brought to the attention of five former Taoiseachs and the serving Taoiseach. It has also been brought to the attention of several TDs, including the current Minister of Foreign Affairs in the South of Ireland, Mr Brian Cowen. They have done absolutely nothing to investigate this terrible case of abuse. Why did the Dublin Government do nothing? The authorities know that to deal with the case in an open and transparent way would be to expose the hideous cover-up by the court system in the Republic of Ireland, where justice appears to be possible only when it will not damage a certain Dublin elite.
Mr and Mrs Bland lived in Rath House from 1971 until 1980. The family was given legal advice by a firm of solicitors called Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien. Mrs Bland approached the family solicitor to get help for her husband, who was already suicidal, in a state of depression and involved in domestic violence. She sought to have him made a ward of court for his own and his family's protection until his suicide attempts had ceased and he had received psychiatric help. Because of this action, increasing domestic violence was visited on Patricia Bland by her husband, and she had to flee the family home. She was amazed that the same company of solicitors - Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien - then began action on behalf of her husband. They did so in the knowledge that he was unable to manage his own financial affairs and that, if their legal action were successful, the children would be placed back into the care of the abusive father. Despite the conflict of interest, the company chased Mrs Bland and her children and had them brought to Dublin for that very purpose.
In an attempt to protect her children, Mrs Bland fled to England on the advice of another solicitor, Mr Guy French of Fred Sutton and Company. He gave her bad advice, but his intentions appeared to be good. However, despite a hearing in England at which her husband admitted in open court to wife-beating, alcoholism, catatonic collapse and psychiatric problems, Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien fought to have Mrs Bland returned to Dublin with her children. That duly happened, and her flight to England to seek justice in a British court was used continually against her in Irish courts to prevent her from having full custody of her children.
Once she was back in Dublin, Mrs Bland paid £1,600 to McCann, Fitzgerald, Roach and Dudley to fight her case. However, that company came to a private deal with the first company, Gerrard, Scallon and O'Brien, to ditch this "troublesome British woman". The agreed action resulted in a court order to place her children in the care of their father, even though they both knew of the evidence that he had committed rape and incest against his children. I hope that the case would have had a different outcome if that evidence had been brought to the attention of the Dublin courts. Not only is the fact that the evidence was never allowed to be brought to their attention alarming, but it shows that impropriety, greed and cover-up ruled the day.
Patricia Bland then turned to Dublin's leading family law expert, Mr Alan Shatter, who is known as "Mr Family Law" because of the many books that he has published and written on the subject. She paid him £2,000 and hoped that he could rescue her children from degrading torture. Mr Shatter had just commenced his political career in Fine Gael. In order for him to act in the interests of his new client, young Sarah Bland, he would have had to sue the previous solicitor, Mr Michael O'Mahoney, for negligence. Mr O'Mahoney just happened to be the legal adviser to Fine Gael, the political party of which Alan Shatter was a member. That aspiring TD, "Mr Family Law," did nothing. Later, he became the shadow Justice Minister in the South of Ireland. He still did nothing. It was only later when Patricia Bland recovered her legal files from his office that she discovered that her calls had been treated with contempt and that "Mr Family Law" had suppressed the evidence of seven witnesses, including a leading psychiatrist and a senior social worker.
4.15 pm
The handling of this case by the legal and political elite of Dublin makes Charles Haughey look squeaky clean. Every legal and ethical code has been trampled, tattered and debased. Every attempt that the mother made to protect and get justice for her children in the courts - or with the help of politicians - and regain her good name were met with indifference, obstruction and malice.
Her child was finally rescued when Judge McWilliam reversed a court order and sent the mother and children to Canada in 1983. They lived there in hiding, under police protection. However, after the rape came the robbery. Her estate was sold, and legal expenses of over £432,000 were claimed by and paid from that estate to Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien, the original solicitors who should have declared their conflict of interest and refused to act.
In the following 15 years, Patricia Bland contacted five Taoiseachs, numerous TDs and MEPs - the list reads like a 'Who's Who' of Irish politics - all of whom did nothing. Only in the North was her case considered, first, by the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue and today by the Assembly. It is an indictment of the Irish Republic and its establishment that it did not at least consider this case and the matters raised by it. I hope that this debate will prompt someone with integrity in the South to come forward and say that enough is enough and seek an inquiry or tribunal into a sorry nightmare that could have been avoided if appropriate action had been taken in the first place. The evidence for the allegations is well-documented, and the documentation, tape recordings and video cassette can be made available to any Member who wishes to see them.
Sarah Bland is now 24 years of age. She is in the Building today. She has had a difficult life and has experienced fear and post-traumatic stress. From an early age, she has known little but abuse, exile and poverty, but at long last she can see her case put forward. Today's vindication does not come from a Southern courtroom or the Irish state or any of its statutory bodies. Sarah Bland is willing to meet MLAs and tell them about her plight. She is also willing to be an advocate for victims of child sex abuse. I hope that the House can lend its full support to the motion and show that we want to see justice and honour in the case.
Sir John Gorman:
I first heard about Mrs Bland when I was Chairman of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue. Ian Paisley made a moving speech which I took to heart. I made some enquiries and, as a result, was convinced that the actions of the original solicitors, Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien ought to be investigated, as they acted for Mrs Bland when she first told the family solicitors of the dreadful way in which she was being treated.
It was as a result of that first description of her problems that the first actions were taken towards having her husband declared a ward of court. What happened next was that Mr Rory Bland went to the same solicitors. Having acted for Mrs Bland for 11 years, those solicitors then acted against her by suing her on behalf of her husband, repeatedly admitting that their client was Rory Bland. I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister for Justice, Mr John O'Donoghue, on 25 August 1998 and had a rather dismissive reply from him. Of course, he had received a series of letters from many other quarters pointing out the extraordinary instance of a solicitor acting for both clients in a conflict.
The guide to the professional conduct of solicitors in Ireland says that when a solicitor acts for two clients and conflict arises between the interests of those clients, he should cease to act for both clients - clear and simple. However, for 11 years, that rule of the Law Society was not observed. Mrs Bland pursued her case in Dublin, London and Canada. Our equity in this - our right to comment on the laws of another country is strictly limited. It was limited in England, and it was limited in Canada in the same manner. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs Bland in relation to the solicitors in the party. She has had a rather excessive go at the rest of the judicial system in the Republic which, I think, is not to be criticised in the same manner as that particular firm of solicitors.
Our right to comment on the law of another country is strictly limited. It was limited in England and Canada for the same reason. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs Bland.
Ms McWilliams:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is in no way peculiar to the Irish justice system. There are huge inadequacies for victims trying to get successful prosecutions for ritual abuse, sexual abuse, rape or even domestic violence.
The largest and probably the most sophisticated study ever carried out is the Statistics Canada study. It is used throughout the academic world and the judicial system as an example of what can happen when cases come forward. It used a sample of over 12,000 people in Canada and showed that only 6% of cases are reported to the police. There is an enormous amount of under-reporting. Most rape and sexual abuse is not carried out by strangers - 81% is carried out by men known to the women. That 6% is tiny; 50% of that huge 12,000 sample had not reported the incident, because they felt that the police could not do anything about it.
In 1992, the police were still using the official term "No Crime", and that term was used on the papers. Our work in Northern Ireland and in the Republic has, I am glad to say, moved on since then. I know that because I used to go through papers to which a large "NC" had been attached. Today, reasons must be given for not pursuing a case. Fifty per cent of that sample said that they did not think that they could do anything; 41% felt that the nature of the abuse made it difficult for the victim to gather evidence that would stand up in court. However, it has little to do with that. Thirty-three per cent feared further attack. Recent studies in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland show that even when victims are persuaded to take their cases to prosecution, less than half of the cases are pursued - even after the police have taken them up.
I want to pay tribute to the child abuse and rape inquiry teams that I have accompanied to court in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. They have taken innumerable cases to court, only to find that many of the cases are dropped by the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Northern Ireland or in the Republic. They found that the witnesses were only as good as their evidence and that the state will take a case only if it feels that the witness is competent. If the state feels that the witness is not competent, it will not take the case.
I recently had to write to the DPP about the case of a young woman who had cerebral palsy and who had not even been interviewed by the DPP. The department read the words "cerebral palsy", dismissed the witness as incompetent and did not pursue the case. The DPP had told the perpetrator that it was not pursuing the case, but when I wrote asking the department to interview the girl, it changed its mind. As is normal, the perpetrator came after me, as, unknown to me, the DPP had given him my name without informing me. He took an abusive process application, arguing that his rights had been infringed. However, the DPP did pursue the case. The DPP had never actually interviewed any of the witnesses to determine their competence.
It is little wonder that statistics show that less than half the cases go forward to prosecution and that only 6% officially go to the police or to the judicial system. Only half of those go to trial, and only 10% end in convictions. Depressingly, the most recent studies show that conviction rates are decreasing while reporting is increasing. That is not peculiar to the Republic of Ireland - it is the case in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. Although more cases are reported today, our conviction rates are lower today than they were in the 1980s. Something is wrong with the judicial system, and it must be put right before we criticise other jurisdictions.
I want to take up the issue of flights out of jurisdiction. That must be taken much more seriously in all courts here, in the Republic of Ireland and in Great Britain. When women flee because they fear for the safety of their children, they are held in contempt of court. There must be reasons for taking such drastic steps; some are even prepared to challenge the court that has asked them to hand over their children. That came up in another case in which I was involved - one that resulted in a successful conviction. It concerned a prison officer, well known in Carrickfergus, whom I can name, because the right to anonymity disappears with conviction. Occasionally, such people must be named in order to protect others. I did not name the individuals in the first case because, although the case went to court twice, no verdict was reached. The two unfortunate victims were separated, which is often the case. The victims are not able to support one another as they cannot be taken together through the courts. They are separated, and one is not allowed to mention the other. The minute that happens, the case is thrown out.
4.30 pm
In this case, the Caldwell case, the woman had to change her identity. It is ironic that the troubles in Northern Ireland have given us information that we can use to get others out of the country. We were able to use the systems in place to help informers. The woman had to have a new name and a new insurance number, and she had to leave the country. Her daughters, who were students, had to sit their exams abroad. Then, after all that money had been spent, the court decided that she had to be brought back when the father from inside prison decided, as in this case, that he wanted the children made wards of court. That shows that the judges had little expertise and training. We spend a fortune doing all this, and it is all wasted. The poor woman had to return.
Fortunately, two police officers came to court to say that if her new identity were exposed, then all the time in England, where the woman had to go underground, would have been wasted. Many other women are in hiding. The man in this case had attempted murder. He swore in the courts and in the hospital to which she was taken - again, it was bad practice, for he was put in the bed in the next cubicle to her - that if he could not get her this time, then as long as he was alive, he would get her. That is often what such men say. That is undoubtedly why victims must take such enormous precautions.
In the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we are learning from such cases. Police officers have been trained to deal with them, and police policy has moved so far forward from the 1980s. The judiciary, however, has not yet been touched. The Law Societies in the Republic and Northern Ireland must take the issue of conflict of interest much more seriously. Recently, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was challenged because a judge had to put a young man into Lisnevin Juvenile Justice Centre - a juvenile who was too young to be there. The case famously came up in the newspapers. The judge had ruled that the elderly woman in the case should not have contact with the young man as he was below the age of sexual consent. The solicitor was dealing with both cases simultaneously, working for the woman and the young man and passing messages between the two of them. Again, it was the parents and an aunt and uncle who contacted me to highlight that. The Law Societies should stop allowing that to happen. The conflict of interest that solicitors have in such cases must be taken seriously.
This morning, I had a phone call about bail conditions. I had to arrange to have someone rehoused, to be moved from somewhere where she was quite happy to live. The perpetrator in that serious case had decided that he could get rehoused just around the corner while the case was going through the courts. The victim, who is taking that person to court, is living in terror. The bail conditions were such that he had to present himself at police stations on a four-weekly basis. Why were they not such that he was not allowed to go anywhere in the vicinity of the woman? What can be learnt from that to ensure that witnesses do not repeatedly withdraw? One third of all witnesses who start the process of going to court in rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence cases withdraw because of the fear of more attacks or intimidation by the person who perpetrated the abuse in the first instance. When victims come forward, they must be able to have confidence in the judicial system. They are victimised once by the perpetrator and again by the system to which they turn for help.
I will not support the motion. First, it has not been well worded. Perhaps Mr Paisley can tell us why it says:
"the daughter of British citizen Sarah Bland".
It might have read:
"the daughter of British citizen" -
comma -
"Patricia Bland".
That is not why I am not supporting it.
I will do whatever I can in the case of Sarah Bland, as in any other case. I am concerned that the motion points simply to the failure of one judicial system, and I am concerned that that is the reason behind it. It is not a criticism of the judiciaries, North and South. Had it been like that, I would have taken a different view, but I never, ever, want to see a sex abuse case used for political reasons.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I regret that Ms McWilliams is looking at this in a partisan way. If anything similar had happened in Northern Ireland, most Members would condemn it strongly. It does not matter where the abuse takes place. It does not matter who is responsible for the abuse or where they live; before God, and before morality and decency, they are to be condemned.
The House has a responsibility to lift its eyes beyond its own territory - especially to a country that invites us to become part of its system, invites us to go under its laws and tells us that our system is not the right system. It is to be regretted that that is not the view of Ms McWilliams. We all know about her work in this realm, and it is widely appreciated. However, her position today, adopted because the motion relates to the Irish Republic, is to be regretted.
The Irish Republic already stands indicted before the whole world with regard to corruption. There are five legal and public inquiries going on at the moment in the South of Ireland. The highest of the land - or their families - are involved in those inquiries. The legal system in the Irish Republic has taken the right to deal with such matters upon itself. We know the shenanigans of one former Taoiseach and we know how the courts reacted to that. I am glad that the inquiries have been set up in the South of Ireland, and I am glad that they are proceeding against the high and mighty elite, who thought that they were free to do what they liked, breaking the commandments of the land.
It is obvious from the evidence that there were matters in the Irish Republic that could not be justified. The Ulster Unionist Member who spoke in this debate - an ex-police officer - made it clear that on one matter alone there was a case that must be answered. How could a solicitor be justified in having two clients, and, after changing horses halfway through, go against the client that he had been instructing and taking large sums of money from? When one considers the relationship of those solicitors with people in high office in the South of Ireland and their standing in society in the South, one comes to the conclusion that those relationships were stronger than truth and stronger than righteousness.
I salute Sarah and her mother for having the courage and the strength to take on the case. I know something of what they have come through, and I know from my own 50 years' pastoral work in this city how such cases drain the victim and those associated. I salute them today, and I trust that the Assembly will salute them by passing this resolution.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I thank those who have spoken in favour of the motion. I thank Sir John Gorman for his comments, and for putting his finger on the nub of the case. It was not a case of not having the right expert; it was not a case of missing a point of evidence; it was about the crime committed by the original solicitor. If the first solicitor had not acted in conflict with his professional interests, such a travesty would not have occurred, or it would have taken a different course. Sir John is right to raise that point. Had that solicitor acted differently, the financial estate of the Bland family would also have been protected, ensuring that the family did not endure the double victimhood of having to live in poverty subsequent to the rape and incest. It is clear that the first lie is always the most difficult to tell. In this case, the most difficult lie was that of the solicitor. Once it was told, as we well know, the spinning of the web was begun. It had to continue, in order to conceal the original cover-up. That lies at the heart of the case.
The House was shocked by the comments of Monica McWilliams. There was a good deal of padding, but, when it all came down to it, her reason for not supporting a case that highlights the plight of a rape victim and a brutalised mother was a missing comma. That is pathetic. What kind of excuse is that to give to the House?
Monica McWilliams was correct when she said that elements of the case were not unique. That is true. It happens every day in other jurisdictions. However, we are debating a specific issue. At some point, we must be specific; life is not always full of generalities. In this case it is disappointing, to say the least, that a missing comma has been used as an excuse by the Member for South Belfast. The allegation was made that -
Ms McWilliams:
Will the Member give way?
Mr Paisley Jnr:
No, you have done yourself enough disservice today.
Ms McWilliams:
You are not giving way because you know that -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
The Member has done herself enough disservice. The measures mentioned by the Member have been in place since 1992, and the campaign has been ongoing since 1980. The measures that have been identified have therefore been wholly inadequate to address the problems that this case has thrown up. Pious words will do nothing unless we have action.
Members should vote in favour of the motion. By doing so, they will demonstrate that, in this jurisdiction, we are at least prepared to note the concerns and plead with others down there to listen and to take genuine action.
4.45 pm
It was a mistake to divulge the identity of the Carrickfergus family. I hope that on reflection the Member will consider that. I know that the daughter in that case is still in hiding away from Northern Ireland. Her life has been messed up considerably -
Ms McWilliams:
She is one of my students.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
That may be the case, but I wish that the Member had not mentioned her name.
Ms McWilliams:
It is in the newspaper every day.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
That is all very well. It was very sad for that young girl who is trying to get a new life. That her case has been raised in the newspaper is not a justification for raising it today. It does damage; it brings it back; and it brings it home. That is what I have been told -
Ms McWilliams:
She wants publicity.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
That is what I have been told by the victims and, on that basis, the Member should have some respect for the victims. She may have been speaking to other victims who want a different course of action, but there are victims who do not.
The other claim - that in this case the judges lacked expertise - is also nonsense. The judges in the Bland case were not permitted to see the evidence. Therefore, they could not make the decision to prevent the child falling into the custody of the abuser. Again, that goes back to the original misdemeanour by the first solicitor. If the first solicitor had not acted in the way that he did, the judges would have eventually got to see the evidence. However, the fact that the judges never got to see the evidence until much later in the case, when the damage had been done, shows that it is a question not of missing expertise - although it might be so in other cases - but of the failure to show the bench the evidence. It was only after the bench saw the evidence that they made sure that the child was taken to Canada and put under police protection in exile there.
I hope that, given the evidence about the cover-up in this case, Members will not hide behind flimsy excuses but will put their money where their mouth is and support the motion in the way that it has been worded. I cannot explain the missing comma. It has gone astray somewhere in the transmission of the documents, but the meaning is very clear. I hope that no flimsy excuse will be used by any Member to avoid taking a decision that others have been too frightened to take because of fear of the elite - legal or political - whom they wish to protect.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern the failure of the Irish Justice system to resolve the rape/incest case of the daughter of British citizen Sarah Bland.
Adjourned at 4.49 pm.
4 July / Menu / 13 September